http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdate...39852.html

Makes a ton of geographical sense plus MWC gets a second post-Xmas date....that, and the fact the WAC #1/#2 plays in Boise Bowl, will probably make the bowl become MWC's #2/#3 bowl. The Houston Bow is now, of course, off the table for MWC/TCU.

Tallgrass Wrote:http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdate...39852.html

Makes a ton of geographical sense plus MWC gets a second post-Xmas date....that, and the fact the WAC #1/#2 plays in Boise Bowl, will probably make the bowl become MWC's #2/#3 bowl. The Houston Bow is now, of course, off the table for MWC/TCU.

Didn't know what the "H" bowl was...Hawaii, Houston, Humanitarian....

GS.

The WAC better hope they make the BCS that year, otherwise it's going to be like 11-1 Boise State vs. 7-5 New Mexico. Ugh Ugh Ugh.

This is a superiority move by the MWC in the region. It looks like the "Presidents from each of the MWC will talk about expansion for the first time since TCU." I think this move is a small step to include Boise State, since they have been lobbying to get into the MWC for years, it might happen soon.

I think is a step in adding Boise too. I also think it will move up the ladder with a ten win ranked boise we will need one of our top 3 teams to play them.

GreenSteve Wrote:

Tallgrass Wrote:http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdate...39852.html

Makes a ton of geographical sense plus MWC gets a second post-Xmas date....that, and the fact the WAC #1/#2 plays in Boise Bowl, will probably make the bowl become MWC's #2/#3 bowl. The Houston Bow is now, of course, off the table for MWC/TCU.

Didn't know what the "H" bowl was...Hawaii, Houston, Humanitarian....

GS.

Everybody has their "filter" thru which they see things. For us CUSA/West guys, it was obvious....but lesson learned and I won't use H-Bowl term again bu Humanitarian Bowl.

Did I miss something? I did not see any quote about MWC schools presidents meeting to discuss expansion.

Taking Boise will kill the WAC, their is not another western school in Div1a to fill their slot. No WAC probably seems ok until you figure out that if the WAC dies... there in other other conference out west for the MWC and PAC 10 to schedule ooc games with. MWC already strong with BYU, UTAH, TCU leading the way... adding Boise means splitting pie 10 ways instead of 9... and MWC still will not be BCS. I don't see it. Boise brings no real TV's either..

WAC would be ok if MWC only took Boise. WAC has 9 members at present and would just drop to 8 like the Big East. It will encourage them to go after North Texas again, as well as start encouraging Big Sky, Southland, and Great West schools to move up.

No Bull Wrote:Did I miss something? I did not see any quote about MWC schools presidents meeting to discuss expansion.

Taking Boise will kill the WAC, their is not another western school in Div1a to fill their slot. No WAC probably seems ok until you figure out that if the WAC dies... there in other other conference out west for the MWC and PAC 10 to schedule ooc games with. MWC already strong with BYU, UTAH, TCU leading the way... adding Boise means splitting pie 10 ways instead of 9... and MWC still will not be BCS. I don't see it. Boise brings no real TV's either..

The MWC Commissioner gave a radio interview in Boise while finalizing the Humanitarian Bowl agreement and indicated that the MWC Presidents are open to revisiting the expansion questions. For a commissioner to go public on something like this, there has to be something to it. This is, without question, a new development.

Regarding the tv issue, that would be addressed along with expansion. For example, if expansion provided the excuse for tv to renegotiate the current MWC on terms less favorable to MWC, then MWC would probably not expand.

I kind of go back to BE and CUSA situation when ACC took Miami, Va Tech, and Boston College. Doom and gloom were predicted for both BE and CUSA. That didn't happen. For BE, Louisville, WVA, and USF emerged. The BE signed a new lucrative contract with tremedous tv exposure. Something like that will probably happen to the WAC....who should look to other schools like Sacramento State, UC Davis and perhaps others for a replacement. Please remember that it was only a few years ago when the MWC fans were flaming WAC for having to add a "truck driving " school (Boise State) to have enough teams for a conference. (FYI, truck driving is taught at BSU).

Schools like Nevada, SJSU, Utah State, and NMSU will have more bowl opportunities....to play BYU, Utah, Boise State, and TCU in the Albuquerque and Boise bowls....and that will boost their football programs.

TCU would benefit greatly via enhanced recruiting if MWC attains BCS status. No question about that.

For CUSA, it means not losing Houston, UTEP or SMU to the MWC....it appears but any supposition at this time is foolhardy. But that could be great news.

In addition the recruiting impact should be minimal for other CUSA/West schools....the kids CUSA/West schools recruit are already being recruited by Big 12 and other BCS schools....CUSA has already been fighting SEC and Big 12....and, for that reason, I don't see a BCS MWC as a recruiting competitor....that is, I don't see a whole lot of Texas or Oklahoma kids opting for Colorado State, New Mexico, or Wyoming.

So, if expansion stops at BSU, then this is a positive development for CUSA. Like PAC, I don't see MWC going beyond 10 teams because everyone wants to play BYU (and probably Utah) just like northern PAC schools want to play USC and UCLA each year so they can boost their season ticket sales and for recruiting purposes.

What school would be hurt most by a BCS MWC? My guess is certain MWC schools might be hurt the most. It might be that, with four strong schools (BYU, UU, BSU, TCU) and therefore four conferences losses, New Mexico, Wyoming, CSU, and AFA might fall further behind. Their conferences losses would go up. And, if SDSU and UNLV ever find a good coach like BYU, Utah, TCU....then their recruiting would go up with BCS status and a good coach...making the situation for Wyoming, CSU, AFA, and New Mexico even more difficult. This is the second reason I don't see CUSA/West schools hurt by a BCS MWC....if CUSA/West had to compete with BYU, Utah, or a BCS SDSU or a BCS UNLV or a BCS Boise State for Texas and Oklahoma recruits...then that would be a different story. Wyoming's program has already deteoriated to the level of what Baylor is to Big 12.

WAC_FAN Wrote:The WAC better hope they make the BCS that year, otherwise it's going to be like 11-1 Boise State vs. 7-5 New Mexico. Ugh Ugh Ugh.

I don't see Boise losing a game this year. What will stop them from getting to the BCS Bowl game maybe Utah. But I think Utah will eventually lose a game as well.

Tallgrass Wrote:

No Bull Wrote:Did I miss something? I did not see any quote about MWC schools presidents meeting to discuss expansion.

Taking Boise will kill the WAC, their is not another western school in Div1a to fill their slot. No WAC probably seems ok until you figure out that if the WAC dies... there in other other conference out west for the MWC and PAC 10 to schedule ooc games with. MWC already strong with BYU, UTAH, TCU leading the way... adding Boise means splitting pie 10 ways instead of 9... and MWC still will not be BCS. I don't see it. Boise brings no real TV's either..

The MWC Commissioner gave a radio interview in Boise while finalizing the Humanitarian Bowl agreement and indicated that the MWC Presidents are open to revisiting the expansion questions. For a commissioner to go public on something like this, there has to be something to it. This is, without question, a new development.

Regarding the tv issue, that would be addressed along with expansion. For example, if expansion provided the excuse for tv to renegotiate the current MWC on terms less favorable to MWC, then MWC would probably not expand.

I kind of go back to BE and CUSA situation when ACC took Miami, Va Tech, and Boston College. Doom and gloom were predicted for both BE and CUSA. That didn't happen. For BE, Louisville, WVA, and USF emerged. The BE signed a new lucrative contract with tremedous tv exposure. Something like that will probably happen to the WAC....who should look to other schools like Sacramento State, UC Davis and perhaps others for a replacement. Please remember that it was only a few years ago when the MWC fans were flaming WAC for having to add a "truck driving " school (Boise State) to have enough teams for a conference. (FYI, truck driving is taught at BSU).

Schools like Nevada, SJSU, Utah State, and NMSU will have more bowl opportunities....to play BYU, Utah, Boise State, and TCU in the Albuquerque and Boise bowls....and that will boost their football programs.

TCU would benefit greatly via enhanced recruiting if MWC attains BCS status. No question about that.

For CUSA, it means not losing Houston, UTEP or SMU to the MWC....it appears but any supposition at this time is foolhardy. But that could be great news.

In addition the recruiting impact should be minimal for other CUSA/West schools....the kids CUSA/West schools recruit are already being recruited by Big 12 and other BCS schools....CUSA has already been fighting SEC and Big 12....and, for that reason, I don't see a BCS MWC as a recruiting competitor....that is, I don't see a whole lot of Texas or Oklahoma kids opting for Colorado State, New Mexico, or Wyoming.

So, if expansion stops at BSU, then this is a positive development for CUSA. Like PAC, I don't see MWC going beyond 10 teams because everyone wants to play BYU (and probably Utah) just like northern PAC schools want to play USC and UCLA each year so they can boost their season ticket sales and for recruiting purposes.

What school would be hurt most by a BCS MWC? My guess is certain MWC schools might be hurt the most. It might be that, with four strong schools (BYU, UU, BSU, TCU) and therefore four conferences losses, New Mexico, Wyoming, CSU, and AFA might fall further behind. Their conferences losses would go up. And, if SDSU and UNLV ever find a good coach like BYU, Utah, TCU....then their recruiting would go up with BCS status and a good coach...making the situation for Wyoming, CSU, AFA, and New Mexico even more difficult. This is the second reason I don't see CUSA/West schools hurt by a BCS MWC....if CUSA/West had to compete with BYU, Utah, or a BCS SDSU or a BCS UNLV or a BCS Boise State for Texas and Oklahoma recruits...then that would be a different story. Wyoming's program has already deteoriated to the level of what Baylor is to Big 12.

When the MWC expands it will be to 12 teams. One tiny market such as Boise will decrease revenues per school. The question the MWC will have to address is will expansion focus on new markets or the "football" powers. If the later, then BSU and FSU are locks, maybe SJSU for a Bay Area presence.

Boise televises well...believe they are on ESPN tonight. A team that increases the competitiveness of a league is hard to pass up; and it's not like Boise brings nothing. Boise's metropolitan area itself is a decent sized city...larger than the entire state of Wyoming, which for some reason was included in the original MWC. Also important to realize that the MWC's goal is to make itself a BCS conference, which means being as competitive as possible. Boise definitely adds to that. The Big East is different since it already has BCS and just needs to focus on $$$...MWC needs $$$ + competition, arguably the latter more to make the case for the BCS.

MWC's BCS Format:

(1st.) Boise State

(2nd.) Fresno State

(3rd.) Another team from Texas

Southern Nights Wrote:MWC's BCS Format:

(1st.) Boise State

(2nd.) Fresno State

(3rd.) Another team from Texas

I actually think they're better off without Fresno. Right now they only have one California team, and I think that helps them politically with the Pac-10. Another Cal team would probably make the Pac-10 very unhappy (since the Cal schools don't want another one in their backyard and the other Pac-10 schools need to recruit California). And if the Pac-10's unhappy, then the Big 10 is unhappy, and the Rose Bowl's unhappy.

The Pac-10-Big 10-Rose Bowl relationship with the BCS is the most tenuous, and even if the MWC is able to make the case to the other conferences for their inclusion, they must get the Pac-10 on board, and another team in California hurts their chances imo. Fresno has a reputation of playing up for big games, but ultimately they haven't won a conference title in a decade and their TV market is not significant.

I think the MWC will add Boise and see where that gets them. They can play a round-robin like the Pac-10 with 3 OOC games. From there, they can always add two additional members if needs be. I think Hawaii will almost certainly be one of those to add additional political support (plus BYU has historically had a rivalry with Hawaii and recruits Hawaii heavily because of the LDS population there).

West Is the Best Wrote:

Tallgrass Wrote:

No Bull Wrote:Did I miss something? I did not see any quote about MWC schools presidents meeting to discuss expansion.

Taking Boise will kill the WAC, their is not another western school in Div1a to fill their slot. No WAC probably seems ok until you figure out that if the WAC dies... there in other other conference out west for the MWC and PAC 10 to schedule ooc games with. MWC already strong with BYU, UTAH, TCU leading the way... adding Boise means splitting pie 10 ways instead of 9... and MWC still will not be BCS. I don't see it. Boise brings no real TV's either..

The MWC Commissioner gave a radio interview in Boise while finalizing the Humanitarian Bowl agreement and indicated that the MWC Presidents are open to revisiting the expansion questions. For a commissioner to go public on something like this, there has to be something to it. This is, without question, a new development.

Regarding the tv issue, that would be addressed along with expansion. For example, if expansion provided the excuse for tv to renegotiate the current MWC on terms less favorable to MWC, then MWC would probably not expand.

I kind of go back to BE and CUSA situation when ACC took Miami, Va Tech, and Boston College. Doom and gloom were predicted for both BE and CUSA. That didn't happen. For BE, Louisville, WVA, and USF emerged. The BE signed a new lucrative contract with tremedous tv exposure. Something like that will probably happen to the WAC....who should look to other schools like Sacramento State, UC Davis and perhaps others for a replacement. Please remember that it was only a few years ago when the MWC fans were flaming WAC for having to add a "truck driving " school (Boise State) to have enough teams for a conference. (FYI, truck driving is taught at BSU).

Schools like Nevada, SJSU, Utah State, and NMSU will have more bowl opportunities....to play BYU, Utah, Boise State, and TCU in the Albuquerque and Boise bowls....and that will boost their football programs.

TCU would benefit greatly via enhanced recruiting if MWC attains BCS status. No question about that.

For CUSA, it means not losing Houston, UTEP or SMU to the MWC....it appears but any supposition at this time is foolhardy. But that could be great news.

In addition the recruiting impact should be minimal for other CUSA/West schools....the kids CUSA/West schools recruit are already being recruited by Big 12 and other BCS schools....CUSA has already been fighting SEC and Big 12....and, for that reason, I don't see a BCS MWC as a recruiting competitor....that is, I don't see a whole lot of Texas or Oklahoma kids opting for Colorado State, New Mexico, or Wyoming.

So, if expansion stops at BSU, then this is a positive development for CUSA. Like PAC, I don't see MWC going beyond 10 teams because everyone wants to play BYU (and probably Utah) just like northern PAC schools want to play USC and UCLA each year so they can boost their season ticket sales and for recruiting purposes.

What school would be hurt most by a BCS MWC? My guess is certain MWC schools might be hurt the most. It might be that, with four strong schools (BYU, UU, BSU, TCU) and therefore four conferences losses, New Mexico, Wyoming, CSU, and AFA might fall further behind. Their conferences losses would go up. And, if SDSU and UNLV ever find a good coach like BYU, Utah, TCU....then their recruiting would go up with BCS status and a good coach...making the situation for Wyoming, CSU, AFA, and New Mexico even more difficult. This is the second reason I don't see CUSA/West schools hurt by a BCS MWC....if CUSA/West had to compete with BYU, Utah, or a BCS SDSU or a BCS UNLV or a BCS Boise State for Texas and Oklahoma recruits...then that would be a different story. Wyoming's program has already deteoriated to the level of what Baylor is to Big 12.

When the MWC expands it will be to 12 teams. One tiny market such as Boise will decrease revenues per school. The question the MWC will have to address is will expansion focus on new markets or the "football" powers. If the later, then BSU and FSU are locks, maybe SJSU for a Bay Area presence.

I have followed the MWC board for a long time. For whatever reason, there seems to be a strong resistance to Fresno State and it appears to be coming from BYU. I don't know if it was the Jerry Tarkanian hire or what...

And, sometimes I think BYU considers its religous mission along with its athletic goals....there are a lot of Mormons in Boise and eastern Washington. But I really don't know...just speculation on my part. But, this too, would give preference to Boise State.

Another factor to watch is SDSU's situation....students are heavily assessed a "student fee" that is a primary source of funds to support SDSU athletics. Faculty, and it appears the majority of students, resent the student fee. This problem is compounded by the fact that SDSU has poor football teams and is playing in a stadium off campus that is some distance from the campus. It appears that only the very, very, very strong support of the SDSU President is keeping SDSU football alive. The President publicly stated that SDSU would have football as long as he is president. The question is what happens when he is no longer president? This might open the door to Fresno.

MWC should dump Wyoming....the football business trend has turned Wyoming into the MWC version of Baylor. I would replace Wyoming with SJSU for the reasons you stated.

In addition to the BYU/Utah factor I cited for MWC schools, I think MWC does not want to destroy WAC as a viableopponent for nonconference games. Adding one team would balance MWC and they might end up playing a 9 game schedule like PAC....and fill the nonconference games with PAC, WAC, and CUSA opponentns.

2 Texas schools and fresno is most likely. The MWC needs a healthy WAC

TopCoog Wrote:2 Texas schools and fresno is most likely. The MWC needs a healthy WAC

That would likely be UTEP and Houston

You can't dump Wyoming, they are a part of the Gang of Five that left the WAC for the MWC.

I think Nevada can bring a lot to the MWC too since they are pretty good at football and basketball.

We dont need a healthy WAC we need a breathing WAC. I think were going to add Boise for now and let the WAC stabilize. I think Fresno will come later. Hawaii is out and so is 12 teams. Houston and SMU wont be the tenth or 11 team. I could see Houston being the 12th that would be good for the league but people dont want 12.

BYUcoog Wrote:Craig Thompson said recently that we arnt interested in division play. Boise and Fresno are the only two options for us and I dont know which one is the front runner..Boise has the record, BCS game, 10 win season...Fresno has California. I think they will both be in but 1 at a time.

That would be terrible. Add BSU and wait another 10 years for FSU? I know the MWC wouldn't work well (politically) as a 12 team setup. What the MWC needs to do is go to 11 adding Boise St and Fresno St.....at the same time.

MWC11
TCU
Utah
BYU
New Mexico
Fresno St
Boise St
Air Force
Colorado St
Wyoming
UNLV
San Diego St

MWC #1 - Fiesta Bowl
MWC #2 - Las Vegas Bowl
MWC #3 - Poinsettia Bowl
MWC #4 - Armed Forces Bowl
MWC #5 - New Mexico Bowl
MWC #6 - Humanitarian Bowl

Play 9 conference games and 3 OOC games. Lock in the gang of 5 games on a yearly basis so they won't bitch. Kind of like how they do it in the Big10 (Mich and OSU play every year).

This would be one hell of a conference and at the very least on par with the NBE but with greater depth.

Tallgrass Wrote:

West Is the Best Wrote:

Tallgrass Wrote:

No Bull Wrote:Did I miss something? I did not see any quote about MWC schools presidents meeting to discuss expansion.

Taking Boise will kill the WAC, their is not another western school in Div1a to fill their slot. No WAC probably seems ok until you figure out that if the WAC dies... there in other other conference out west for the MWC and PAC 10 to schedule ooc games with. MWC already strong with BYU, UTAH, TCU leading the way... adding Boise means splitting pie 10 ways instead of 9... and MWC still will not be BCS. I don't see it. Boise brings no real TV's either..

The MWC Commissioner gave a radio interview in Boise while finalizing the Humanitarian Bowl agreement and indicated that the MWC Presidents are open to revisiting the expansion questions. For a commissioner to go public on something like this, there has to be something to it. This is, without question, a new development.

Regarding the tv issue, that would be addressed along with expansion. For example, if expansion provided the excuse for tv to renegotiate the current MWC on terms less favorable to MWC, then MWC would probably not expand.

I kind of go back to BE and CUSA situation when ACC took Miami, Va Tech, and Boston College. Doom and gloom were predicted for both BE and CUSA. That didn't happen. For BE, Louisville, WVA, and USF emerged. The BE signed a new lucrative contract with tremedous tv exposure. Something like that will probably happen to the WAC....who should look to other schools like Sacramento State, UC Davis and perhaps others for a replacement. Please remember that it was only a few years ago when the MWC fans were flaming WAC for having to add a "truck driving " school (Boise State) to have enough teams for a conference. (FYI, truck driving is taught at BSU).

Schools like Nevada, SJSU, Utah State, and NMSU will have more bowl opportunities....to play BYU, Utah, Boise State, and TCU in the Albuquerque and Boise bowls....and that will boost their football programs.

TCU would benefit greatly via enhanced recruiting if MWC attains BCS status. No question about that.

For CUSA, it means not losing Houston, UTEP or SMU to the MWC....it appears but any supposition at this time is foolhardy. But that could be great news.

In addition the recruiting impact should be minimal for other CUSA/West schools....the kids CUSA/West schools recruit are already being recruited by Big 12 and other BCS schools....CUSA has already been fighting SEC and Big 12....and, for that reason, I don't see a BCS MWC as a recruiting competitor....that is, I don't see a whole lot of Texas or Oklahoma kids opting for Colorado State, New Mexico, or Wyoming.

So, if expansion stops at BSU, then this is a positive development for CUSA. Like PAC, I don't see MWC going beyond 10 teams because everyone wants to play BYU (and probably Utah) just like northern PAC schools want to play USC and UCLA each year so they can boost their season ticket sales and for recruiting purposes.

What school would be hurt most by a BCS MWC? My guess is certain MWC schools might be hurt the most. It might be that, with four strong schools (BYU, UU, BSU, TCU) and therefore four conferences losses, New Mexico, Wyoming, CSU, and AFA might fall further behind. Their conferences losses would go up. And, if SDSU and UNLV ever find a good coach like BYU, Utah, TCU....then their recruiting would go up with BCS status and a good coach...making the situation for Wyoming, CSU, AFA, and New Mexico even more difficult. This is the second reason I don't see CUSA/West schools hurt by a BCS MWC....if CUSA/West had to compete with BYU, Utah, or a BCS SDSU or a BCS UNLV or a BCS Boise State for Texas and Oklahoma recruits...then that would be a different story. Wyoming's program has already deteoriated to the level of what Baylor is to Big 12.

When the MWC expands it will be to 12 teams. One tiny market such as Boise will decrease revenues per school. The question the MWC will have to address is will expansion focus on new markets or the "football" powers. If the later, then BSU and FSU are locks, maybe SJSU for a Bay Area presence.

I have followed the MWC board for a long time. For whatever reason, there seems to be a strong resistance to Fresno State and it appears to be coming from BYU. I don't know if it was the Jerry Tarkanian hire or what...

And, sometimes I think BYU considers its religous mission along with its athletic goals....there are a lot of Mormons in Boise and eastern Washington. But I really don't know...just speculation on my part. But, this too, would give preference to Boise State.

Another factor to watch is SDSU's situation....students are heavily assessed a "student fee" that is a primary source of funds to support SDSU athletics. Faculty, and it appears the majority of students, resent the student fee. This problem is compounded by the fact that SDSU has poor football teams and is playing in a stadium off campus that is some distance from the campus. It appears that only the very, very, very strong support of the SDSU President is keeping SDSU football alive. The President publicly stated that SDSU would have football as long as he is president. The question is what happens when he is no longer president? This might open the door to Fresno.

MWC should dump Wyoming....the football business trend has turned Wyoming into the MWC version of Baylor. I would replace Wyoming with SJSU for the reasons you stated.

In addition to the BYU/Utah factor I cited for MWC schools, I think MWC does not want to destroy WAC as a viableopponent for nonconference games. Adding one team would balance MWC and they might end up playing a 9 game schedule like PAC....and fill the nonconference games with PAC, WAC, and CUSA opponentns.

You can't go by message board guys. In many cases those guys are the loons of the fan base. All you have to do is drop in on the Big East board to see that.

TopCoog Wrote:You can't go by message board guys. In many cases those guys are the loons of the fan base. All you have to do is drop in on the Big East board to see that.

You heard it from the horse's mouth folks!

TopCoog Wrote:

Tallgrass Wrote:

West Is the Best Wrote:

Tallgrass Wrote:

No Bull Wrote:Did I miss something? I did not see any quote about MWC schools presidents meeting to discuss expansion.

Taking Boise will kill the WAC, their is not another western school in Div1a to fill their slot. No WAC probably seems ok until you figure out that if the WAC dies... there in other other conference out west for the MWC and PAC 10 to schedule ooc games with. MWC already strong with BYU, UTAH, TCU leading the way... adding Boise means splitting pie 10 ways instead of 9... and MWC still will not be BCS. I don't see it. Boise brings no real TV's either..

The MWC Commissioner gave a radio interview in Boise while finalizing the Humanitarian Bowl agreement and indicated that the MWC Presidents are open to revisiting the expansion questions. For a commissioner to go public on something like this, there has to be something to it. This is, without question, a new development.

Regarding the tv issue, that would be addressed along with expansion. For example, if expansion provided the excuse for tv to renegotiate the current MWC on terms less favorable to MWC, then MWC would probably not expand.

I kind of go back to BE and CUSA situation when ACC took Miami, Va Tech, and Boston College. Doom and gloom were predicted for both BE and CUSA. That didn't happen. For BE, Louisville, WVA, and USF emerged. The BE signed a new lucrative contract with tremedous tv exposure. Something like that will probably happen to the WAC....who should look to other schools like Sacramento State, UC Davis and perhaps others for a replacement. Please remember that it was only a few years ago when the MWC fans were flaming WAC for having to add a "truck driving " school (Boise State) to have enough teams for a conference. (FYI, truck driving is taught at BSU).

Schools like Nevada, SJSU, Utah State, and NMSU will have more bowl opportunities....to play BYU, Utah, Boise State, and TCU in the Albuquerque and Boise bowls....and that will boost their football programs.

TCU would benefit greatly via enhanced recruiting if MWC attains BCS status. No question about that.

For CUSA, it means not losing Houston, UTEP or SMU to the MWC....it appears but any supposition at this time is foolhardy. But that could be great news.

In addition the recruiting impact should be minimal for other CUSA/West schools....the kids CUSA/West schools recruit are already being recruited by Big 12 and other BCS schools....CUSA has already been fighting SEC and Big 12....and, for that reason, I don't see a BCS MWC as a recruiting competitor....that is, I don't see a whole lot of Texas or Oklahoma kids opting for Colorado State, New Mexico, or Wyoming.

So, if expansion stops at BSU, then this is a positive development for CUSA. Like PAC, I don't see MWC going beyond 10 teams because everyone wants to play BYU (and probably Utah) just like northern PAC schools want to play USC and UCLA each year so they can boost their season ticket sales and for recruiting purposes.

What school would be hurt most by a BCS MWC? My guess is certain MWC schools might be hurt the most. It might be that, with four strong schools (BYU, UU, BSU, TCU) and therefore four conferences losses, New Mexico, Wyoming, CSU, and AFA might fall further behind. Their conferences losses would go up. And, if SDSU and UNLV ever find a good coach like BYU, Utah, TCU....then their recruiting would go up with BCS status and a good coach...making the situation for Wyoming, CSU, AFA, and New Mexico even more difficult. This is the second reason I don't see CUSA/West schools hurt by a BCS MWC....if CUSA/West had to compete with BYU, Utah, or a BCS SDSU or a BCS UNLV or a BCS Boise State for Texas and Oklahoma recruits...then that would be a different story. Wyoming's program has already deteoriated to the level of what Baylor is to Big 12.

When the MWC expands it will be to 12 teams. One tiny market such as Boise will decrease revenues per school. The question the MWC will have to address is will expansion focus on new markets or the "football" powers. If the later, then BSU and FSU are locks, maybe SJSU for a Bay Area presence.

I have followed the MWC board for a long time. For whatever reason, there seems to be a strong resistance to Fresno State and it appears to be coming from BYU. I don't know if it was the Jerry Tarkanian hire or what...

And, sometimes I think BYU considers its religous mission along with its athletic goals....there are a lot of Mormons in Boise and eastern Washington. But I really don't know...just speculation on my part. But, this too, would give preference to Boise State.

Another factor to watch is SDSU's situation....students are heavily assessed a "student fee" that is a primary source of funds to support SDSU athletics. Faculty, and it appears the majority of students, resent the student fee. This problem is compounded by the fact that SDSU has poor football teams and is playing in a stadium off campus that is some distance from the campus. It appears that only the very, very, very strong support of the SDSU President is keeping SDSU football alive. The President publicly stated that SDSU would have football as long as he is president. The question is what happens when he is no longer president? This might open the door to Fresno.

MWC should dump Wyoming....the football business trend has turned Wyoming into the MWC version of Baylor. I would replace Wyoming with SJSU for the reasons you stated.

In addition to the BYU/Utah factor I cited for MWC schools, I think MWC does not want to destroy WAC as a viableopponent for nonconference games. Adding one team would balance MWC and they might end up playing a 9 game schedule like PAC....and fill the nonconference games with PAC, WAC, and CUSA opponentns.

You can't go by message board guys. In many cases those guys are the loons of the fan base. All you have to do is drop in on the Big East board to see that.

Well, first of all, yes, many of us are loons. That is why I like the boards. But these conference and school boards also, many times, have knowledgeable posters familiar with the interworkings of the conference or school. Many times, I have seen good "inside" information posted on a school board....that eventually was copied over to the conference board. "Inside" information can be defined by personal contact with a decision maker or, in this case, MWC expansion remarks made on a radio station by the MWC commissioner in Idaho that get put on the internet....faster than the newspapers which really haven't reported MWC commissioner's remarks. So I find these board useful sources of information.

Tallgrass Wrote:

TopCoog Wrote:

Tallgrass Wrote:

West Is the Best Wrote:

Tallgrass Wrote:

No Bull Wrote:Did I miss something? I did not see any quote about MWC schools presidents meeting to discuss expansion.

Taking Boise will kill the WAC, their is not another western school in Div1a to fill their slot. No WAC probably seems ok until you figure out that if the WAC dies... there in other other conference out west for the MWC and PAC 10 to schedule ooc games with. MWC already strong with BYU, UTAH, TCU leading the way... adding Boise means splitting pie 10 ways instead of 9... and MWC still will not be BCS. I don't see it. Boise brings no real TV's either..

The MWC Commissioner gave a radio interview in Boise while finalizing the Humanitarian Bowl agreement and indicated that the MWC Presidents are open to revisiting the expansion questions. For a commissioner to go public on something like this, there has to be something to it. This is, without question, a new development.

Regarding the tv issue, that would be addressed along with expansion. For example, if expansion provided the excuse for tv to renegotiate the current MWC on terms less favorable to MWC, then MWC would probably not expand.

I kind of go back to BE and CUSA situation when ACC took Miami, Va Tech, and Boston College. Doom and gloom were predicted for both BE and CUSA. That didn't happen. For BE, Louisville, WVA, and USF emerged. The BE signed a new lucrative contract with tremedous tv exposure. Something like that will probably happen to the WAC....who should look to other schools like Sacramento State, UC Davis and perhaps others for a replacement. Please remember that it was only a few years ago when the MWC fans were flaming WAC for having to add a "truck driving " school (Boise State) to have enough teams for a conference. (FYI, truck driving is taught at BSU).

Schools like Nevada, SJSU, Utah State, and NMSU will have more bowl opportunities....to play BYU, Utah, Boise State, and TCU in the Albuquerque and Boise bowls....and that will boost their football programs.

TCU would benefit greatly via enhanced recruiting if MWC attains BCS status. No question about that.

For CUSA, it means not losing Houston, UTEP or SMU to the MWC....it appears but any supposition at this time is foolhardy. But that could be great news.

In addition the recruiting impact should be minimal for other CUSA/West schools....the kids CUSA/West schools recruit are already being recruited by Big 12 and other BCS schools....CUSA has already been fighting SEC and Big 12....and, for that reason, I don't see a BCS MWC as a recruiting competitor....that is, I don't see a whole lot of Texas or Oklahoma kids opting for Colorado State, New Mexico, or Wyoming.

So, if expansion stops at BSU, then this is a positive development for CUSA. Like PAC, I don't see MWC going beyond 10 teams because everyone wants to play BYU (and probably Utah) just like northern PAC schools want to play USC and UCLA each year so they can boost their season ticket sales and for recruiting purposes.

What school would be hurt most by a BCS MWC? My guess is certain MWC schools might be hurt the most. It might be that, with four strong schools (BYU, UU, BSU, TCU) and therefore four conferences losses, New Mexico, Wyoming, CSU, and AFA might fall further behind. Their conferences losses would go up. And, if SDSU and UNLV ever find a good coach like BYU, Utah, TCU....then their recruiting would go up with BCS status and a good coach...making the situation for Wyoming, CSU, AFA, and New Mexico even more difficult. This is the second reason I don't see CUSA/West schools hurt by a BCS MWC....if CUSA/West had to compete with BYU, Utah, or a BCS SDSU or a BCS UNLV or a BCS Boise State for Texas and Oklahoma recruits...then that would be a different story. Wyoming's program has already deteoriated to the level of what Baylor is to Big 12.

When the MWC expands it will be to 12 teams. One tiny market such as Boise will decrease revenues per school. The question the MWC will have to address is will expansion focus on new markets or the "football" powers. If the later, then BSU and FSU are locks, maybe SJSU for a Bay Area presence.

I have followed the MWC board for a long time. For whatever reason, there seems to be a strong resistance to Fresno State and it appears to be coming from BYU. I don't know if it was the Jerry Tarkanian hire or what...

And, sometimes I think BYU considers its religous mission along with its athletic goals....there are a lot of Mormons in Boise and eastern Washington. But I really don't know...just speculation on my part. But, this too, would give preference to Boise State.

Another factor to watch is SDSU's situation....students are heavily assessed a "student fee" that is a primary source of funds to support SDSU athletics. Faculty, and it appears the majority of students, resent the student fee. This problem is compounded by the fact that SDSU has poor football teams and is playing in a stadium off campus that is some distance from the campus. It appears that only the very, very, very strong support of the SDSU President is keeping SDSU football alive. The President publicly stated that SDSU would have football as long as he is president. The question is what happens when he is no longer president? This might open the door to Fresno.

MWC should dump Wyoming....the football business trend has turned Wyoming into the MWC version of Baylor. I would replace Wyoming with SJSU for the reasons you stated.

In addition to the BYU/Utah factor I cited for MWC schools, I think MWC does not want to destroy WAC as a viableopponent for nonconference games. Adding one team would balance MWC and they might end up playing a 9 game schedule like PAC....and fill the nonconference games with PAC, WAC, and CUSA opponentns.

You can't go by message board guys. In many cases those guys are the loons of the fan base. All you have to do is drop in on the Big East board to see that.

Well, first of all, yes, many of us are loons. That is why I like the boards. But these conference and school boards also, many times, have knowledgeable posters familiar with the interworkings of the conference or school. Many times, I have seen good "inside" information posted on a school board....that eventually was copied over to the conference board. "Inside" information can be defined by personal contact with a decision maker or, in this case, MWC expansion remarks made on a radio station by the MWC commissioner in Idaho that get put on the internet....faster than the newspapers which really haven't reported MWC commissioner's remarks. So I find these board useful sources of information.

For every piece of good information you get recieve you get five pieces of rumor and nonsense. This is actually one of the better boards. As for informed poster no one on the Big east board has a clue what is going on in the Big East office.